Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

New submitter Jimme Blue writes "An employee of the State Department is under investigation and may be fired for 'disclosing classified information.' Or, as others might call it, posting a link to WikiLeaks. 'His crime, he said, was a link he posted on August 25 in a blog post discussing the hypocrisy of recent U.S. actions against Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi. The link went to a 2009 cable about the sale of U.S. military spare parts to Qadaffi through a Portuguese middleman. ... The State Department investigators, he said, demanded to know who had helped him with his blog and told him that every blog post, Facebook post, and tweet by State Department employees had to be pre-cleared by the Department prior to publication."

"direction we're heading" Already there, no!? [salon.com] All that is needed is a slightly more trigger happy president sitting on the now live "Kill anyone without due process button" (see linked article re:Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann)

Just because something classified is leaked doesn't mean it automatically loses its classification.

The requirements for declassification are pretty strict, and few people (relatively) can authorize it. If leaking was all that was necessary, everyone would do it just to avoid the hassle of the classified computer systems.

The government knows you can't get the genie back into the bottle, the cat into the bag, or the National Geographic back into its paper sleeve. They aren't stupid.

At the very least, you are looking at losing your security clearance for looking at stuff beyond your scope of work or security clearance level. This could cost him his job.

As far as criminal prosecution goes, that would be stupid.

I know you guys like to think all info should be open and free but the REAL world doesn't work like that. Countries have secrets.

Losing his job for looking at it would be stupid, since it's been leaked. Losing his job for linking to it, on the other hand, is a completely different situation, because it means someone cleared for the information was pointing someone else to it when it was still classified--and because IIRC, pretty much everyone in government was warned not to do it.

Frankly, a very strong reprimand and instruction to take it down is the minimum punishment is order. A reduction in security clearance might be appropriat

The requirements for declassification are pretty strict, and few people (relatively) can authorize it. If leaking was all that was necessary, everyone would do it just to avoid the hassle of the classified computer systems.

What? I don't think anyone here is suggesting that leaks should be legal, but once it's already leaked there's no use in pretending that it isn't out there. Information the public has should be declassified automatically. That has no bearing on whether giving information to the public

That doesn't change how the government views the information. The classifications of "secret" and "top secret" and the rest are just labels that specify how to handle the information. They are not literal definitions.

When a supposed leak appears there is still some amount of uncertainty about whether the leak is authentic or not. Furthermore, there is the issue that several pieces of sensitive information may be unclassified on their own, but when combined become classified. So it may be prudent to classify some previously sensitive but unclassified data upon the release of other data.

Each individual person who works with classified data doesn't always have the whole picture, and are thus not in a position to judge whe

Can anyone honestly pretend that information which has been leaked and posted on the internet still qualifies as classified?
Also, hasn't the Govt. ever heard of the streisand effect?

Unfortunately, the release of classified information, even if it has already been released, by someone not authorized to release it is still a violation of the laws governing classified material; something made clear in every security brief I have attended.

While it seems ridiculous, it is the law - until it is formally declassified or you are authorized to release it, you can't release it. Even if all the material is unclassified, if the document containing it is classified, it still falls under those rules

Your logic is akin to saying that just because your health, financial, academic or other private records are magically now everyone's business just because they have been posted online.

Your financial records are still your/private/ financial records and should stay that way regardless of the fact that your financial records may have been sold on the black market. Just because someone has leaked a piece of data does not magically change the nature of that data.

I just love this Streisand Effect. It means that no one can ever act anything wrong bad done to them, because people will notice. I think it's bullshit. Yes, the effect is real, but just because it is, it doesn't mean the Government (for example) shouldn't act against an employee violating his work terms.

This is rediculous. The information is in the open so it's not classified. In fact it's even a security breach. Yes; there is the identical information in a State Department computer. The difference is that the stuff in Wikileaks is unverified. Nobody can prove it's the same stuff as in the State Department computer unless someone from the state department states that it is. In this case, the investigators are the people who should be investigated and charged with leaking the information by the act o

That statement is a non-sequitur. Classification is label placed on information by the government which triggers certain rules regarding handling that information which by law must be observed by government employees. It is not necessarily correlated with the availability of the information.

The label applies to the document in the state department. It does not apply to the identical but different document in Wikileaks. Imagine, for example, the state department gets a copy of a Chinese military document (e.g. specifications of a newly coming fighter plane). The document will be classified by the state department. Now imagine the Chinese publish the document (e.g. because they want to market the plane). If you take the Chinese document and publish it; tell everyone about it and say whatever you want, the state department can do nothing. Although the information is identical to the classified information this copy is not classified. If, on the other hand, a person from the state department says "oh; we already had that document" then they may well have put a secret source at considerable risk because that person was the only person who could have leaked the document earlier. This is true, whatever the current status of the information in the document.

In other words; the crime is not linking to Wikileaks. There are two potential crimes; the first is transferring information from the government system to Wikileaks. The second and more easily verifiable crime is saying that linking to Wikileaks is a crime because you are thereby admitting that the documents are real State Department documents. The investigators and other people who are claiming to know that this information is classified are the most likely criminals here.

I'm not sure that I understand you, but as written it seems that you are restating my point. I'm exactly trying to say that a classified copy (almost certainly) remains classified even if a declassified copy exists.

It's not fucking silly. That's an attitude towards the issue taken by people who are ignorant or haven't thought about the issue in sufficient detail.

There are plenty of fucking good reasons for it. Some of these reasons is that in a lot of cases leaked classified information is not known to be true or not. If the information is public there is still a lot of doubt to it's authenticity, some details about it are usually missing, and it may not be correlated with other public but still classified information

That statement is a non-sequitur. Classification is label placed on information by the government which triggers certain rules regarding handling that information which by law must be observed by government employees. It is not necessarily correlated with the availability of the information.

By your definition, that makes it non-classified. It is not the "same" information that was classified, and is no longer being handled under "certain rules". "Information" itself is unclassifiable. If the top speed of the SR-71 were Mach 9.2 and someone else happened to post something about some other fictional plane traveling Mach 9.2, the "information" is not classified. In fact, if someone calculates an observed speed of the airplane and publishes the March 9.2 figure, then that "information" is publ

Classified means the information has been put into a class. Classified doesn't mean "secret", it means "this information is [freely distributable | secret | top secret | 007 eyes only | etc.]". It it literally a work rule that details which information can be disseminated in what manner.

As for the argument where the State Dept. has to admit the stuff is the same thing, that is wrong too. The US gov't has said very clearly to its employees that the wikileaks stuff may contain material that has been classified as secret or above, and to avoid it if you want to keep your job.

As for the argument where the State Dept. has to admit the stuff is the same thing, that is wrong too. The US gov't has said very clearly to its employees that the wikileaks stuff may contain material that has been classified as secret or above, and to avoid it if you want to keep your job.

A generic warning that you may lose your job because there may be classified information in a group of documents is completely separate from a legal action because of a specific document. Anybody can warn in a reasonable way about almost anything and it has no real legal implication except for meaning that people have no possibility for using ignorance as a mitigating factor if they are found to breach a rule. In order to launch a legal investigation against a person you need a specific accusation of a br

This requirement applies to accessing or downloading classified information that occurs
using company-owned unclassified computers or employees' personally owned
computers that access unclassified government systems, either through remote Outlook
access or other remote access capabilities that enable connection to government systems. [my emphasis]

This is not a ban on accessing the data. This is a ban on accessing the data using systems you use for government work. The reason is that it could mess up an investigation into where data came from. Imagine, for example, someone accessed the data internally to confirm that it really was classified and then, when caught claimed they downloaded the copy from Wikileaks. This clause means that, even they got away with it, they would be guilty of a security breach.

More important point from that document:

Cleared contractors should neither confirm nor deny the presence of classified information in
articles or websites in the public domain. Doing so may constitute a security violation.

In other words, the investigators are explicitly in breach of this document for giving a clear signal that the particular chosen link is in fact a classified document.

You put up a completely different sentence from the one in the document and then you ask me to work on my reading comprehension?? In a situation where I have emphasised the important clause of the exact sentence you misquote. As a response to a posting where I did it where people reading will be able to just directly see what you have done. Where do I get the drugs you take? They are clearly really really good stuff.

Dude, no reasonable person could read the linked document and conclude that accessing wikileaks on a personal computer and/or down time was anything other than contraindicated. You have to -want- to misunderstand in order to reach another conclusion.

A total ban on communication about or from the Wikileaks site; even a ban on accessing it from a person's home computer would be an unreasonable restraint on free speech since they are discussed everywhere. The documents are loaded, in their original form, on newspaper web sites (and not just "unclassified strories based on the documents"). The US government cannot legally place a ban on that. This is the "secret" that they really don't want you to know.

-IF- you're right then they can't throw him in jail for accessing wikilieaks on his home computer. That's all well and good.

They can, however, revoke his clearance. And they will revoke it if they believe his behavior indicates a willingness to intentionally mishandle classified information. Have no doubt of it. Classification isn't like a trade secret. As the linked document reminds, classified information remains classified until declassified, even if the content becomes public knowledge.

You missed the part in italics? Or did you purposefully eliminate that in order to change the meaning of the sentence? In that case, it isn't a problem with his reading comprehension, but makes you a liar. The original, before you edited it to change the meaning, made it clear that it applies *only* to computers that access government systems.

As of about 1980, the last time I had a U.S. security clearance, I was aware of three levels of information that could not be divulged (there were other named factors, but they're not relevant here.) The levels were "classified", "secret", and "top secret".

Moreover, if you are an employee of the state department and you link to it you add credibility to it. AFAIU no official ever commented whether the wikileaks materials are correct and complete. Nobody guarantees that there was no deliberate misinformation introduced.

Actually, does the information that is being published by the Wikileaks have any classification whatsoever? That information is owned and disseminated by Wikileaks and some newspapers. Wikileaks did restrict the distribution somewhat to gain profit and exposure, but what possible "classification" can they attach to it that would need to be followed by US government employees? Whatever classified information is there that needs to be kept classified is still owned and kept safe as per its classification labe

It isn't "news for nerds & stuff that matters", it is "news for nerds, stuff that matters". The second clause describes the first, it doesn't add to it. It can be read more like "This website contains news for nerds, you know, the stuff that really matters."

Just because a classified document is made public doesn't mean it automatically becomes declassified. If this person has a security clearance then he should know that. That is the rule. He had security awareness training on it updated yearly. He signed off on the training each time. It was impressed upon him when applying for his clearance. And if State is like the agency where I work we were given specific instructions about this exact scenario. The summary was "if you have a clearance, don't go there, don't link to it, don't read it, don't talk about it, just plain don't".

Considering he has 23 years in and this is really more of a case of being a sloppy idiot instead of espionage, they should just give him the option of retiring from Federal Service so he can keep his benefits and move on. A deal he can't refuse, so to speak.

He while working for the state department gave credibility and verified leaked classified information in violation of state department policies. The fact that it was already out there in the public domain is irrelevant it has not been declassified.He may get fired...a bit harsh but perfectly legal.

Moreover, we were all instructed not to search for, read or refer to the Wikileaks data, as it would be treated as disclosing or misusing classified data. Apparently, this guy can't take a warning seriously.

It's not idiotic when you hold a clearance and have to submit to an investigation every 5 to 10 years.

Those who do not hold such clearances think it not a big deal to get speeding tickets, misdemeanor convictions for bullshit crimes or take a few hits off some weed. Those who actually hold same cannot be so careless.

This gentleman is the idiot. Apparently, he didn't like his livelihood so he quit his job in the most painful way possible, and could end up in prison.

The information that needs to remain a state secret is more or less limited to details of ongoing or planned military operations, scientific details of weapons, maybe schematics of sensitive vehicles and buildings. This doesn't fit in those categories, and seems to be simply egg on our face for bad actions. And besides, this information is by no means secret anymore.

A distinction without a difference. Linking is publishing. What you are saying is akin to "hey, I just dropped that bag of secrets into a garbage can, how was *I* supposed to know that the Soviet spy was going to pick it up?"

If he gets charged with a crime you might have a point. As of now, the only punishment is that he might loose his job. Since his job requires holding a security clearance, and he obviously can't follow the rules about handling classified information, I don't see what the problem is.

I think you missed my point, this information is readily available to anyone in the developed world. Anyone can see US foreign policy for what it is within two clicks.
Pretending that it's still secret and classified and punishing someone for linking to it is not just dishonest it's borderline madness.

So the Bush Administration began talking and cooperating with Qaddafi in exchange for his abandonment of nuclear ambitions. Perhaps the Obama Administration sought to continue this because they too saw the facts as it stood, that Qaddafi had a hard grip on his country and didn't look like he was going out of power any time soon, and thus cooperation and diplomacy was in order for the interests of the US. Contrary to what idealists on the internet may believe, diplomacy isn't just talk, it's backed up with s

Refugees. The average income in north Africa is around $1/day, in southern Europe it's around $100/day. As you can imagine there is a huge demand to move to the money. Southern Europe can't afford to take 5,000,000 migrants per year, they would collapse. Being a member of NATO requires a team player, meaning the USA must support its European allies- meaning payoffs to Qaddafi to stop the migrants.

If you don't have a security clearance, then posting such a link may not be a big thing. However, this gentleman did, and every time there is a major Wikileaks release we are reminded that the fact that it's released on Wikileaks does not change a clearance holder's contractual responsibility to protect classified information and that even linking to Wikileaks or talking about it at work could lead to our dismissal - and furthermore, that just because it's available on Wikileaks does not mean the information has been declassified.

Sometimes this is taken to ridiculous extremes - I once went to a public conference where we were informed that all US citizens had to treat a certain presentation as classified information - meanwhile, as a public conference with people attending from all over the world, those other people could do whatever they wanted with the information. It was clearly public knowledge, but US citizens present with clearances had to treat it as classified because the government said it was.

He may not go to jail, but he definitely violated the agreement he made with the government in exchange for his security clearance and will likely lose it. Unfortunately, that's something that will follow him around, and in many industries simply makes you unemployable.

This individual gives his real name and states that he is an employee of the State Department on his blog.

Suppose instead he was a private employee of Firm X and stated so in his postings, and posted something strongly critical of Firm X? Doesn't everyone here expect he would be reprimanded or fired because of his behavior?

I thought the general rule was that if you identify yourself as an employee of Firm X, then anything you say publicly should be consistent with what the management of Firm X would say. Th

It depends. At AOL, I spent a great deal of time on alt.aol-sucks; engaging in discussions with people who hated our product was a great way to learn what to fix. (A lesson @ComcastCares has repopularized today.) To engage there, I had to be honest; nobody's going to talk to a happy-shiny marketing shill. I'd talk about why we did something we did, and about the trade-offs we made, and I'd even hint about whether I agreed or not. I wouldn't have posted my own rant, but I'd certainly quote others, and I

What I'm getting at is that correlation is not causation. Just because someone said bad things about the government and then got investigated for leaking doesn't mean he was investigated because of his speech. It more likely means that his initial speech and his leaking had the same cause.

and they'll do anything they can to try to stuff the genie back in the bottle, including abrogating our most cherished Constitutional rights. Everyone knows now, with no hearsay or he said, she said, how incompetent and compromised the American government is. You can't go back from there without at least a massive wave of reform. But Obama, the current Congress, and the SCOTUS have no interest in that whatsoever.

We are past the event horizon of a second American Revolution. The question is exactly how l

Actually, I don't think the US Governments look all that bad in the cables. But maybe that's just me, having expected them to come out a LOT worse than they did. I haven't read all cables yet (of course), but what I've gathered from them so far is rather benign. Not all of it as morally crystal clear as one would hope, but neither is it all thuggery. IMHO, the US Govt. shouldn't worry about those cables. Furthermore, they are more or less ancient history by now.

The government's concern has little to do with how the USG appears - people will draw their own conclusions, as you just did. The concern was identifying sources. Information classification in large part has to do with concealing the source of intelligence information, as that revelation can have very negative impacts on the lifespan of the sources. If the sources can't trust you to keep secrets, they won't tell you anything. The utility is obvious.

We are not a nation that operates in the shadows by definition if not by fact. We need to get rid of the idea of classified information completely. Share all truth with all people. As far as national defense concerns go the real answer is to be able to devastate any nation that acts against us. We simply need to make certain that no nation dare to offend us with military actions or other means of attack. Ideas like keeping the M-1 rifle classified for sixty years after every government in the world has

As much as the Gov has drilled into the minds of the public through the media mongers, that Government workers are to stay away from wikileaks. Here comes an idiot complete with a blog. How ignorant can you be? Maybe it is time for him to retire? Meanwhile... "Peter Van Buren, who has worked for the department for 23 years and just published a book that is critical of U.S. reconstruction projects in Iraq, said this week that the State Department had launched an investigation against him earlier this mon

It has been claimed that Bradley Manning had access to all this stuff, at the time it was leaked allegedly by him, so others would also had this access too.
What they would not have had is the equivalent of the journalists, media and social networking able to make sense of a lot of boring documents to find the important parts and put them in context.

Do they want to have a situation where every politically aware, literate citizen of the USA (and the rest of the world) knows more about what the US governme

All U.S. government employees and contractors were warned when the first Wikileaks dumps happened that classifications had not changed and that it was still a violation to repeat any of that stuff.

We got memos. We got emails. It was a mandatory discussion topic at group meetings.

Everyone knew/knows that you can't repeat any of that information, you can't link to it, you can't read it from your work computer. If you're a fed or a contractor, that stuff might as well be radioactive anthrax.

Well, honestly the US took a more backstage role in the whole Libya affair, before (during the embargo) and after (during the war). If one wishes to be righteously indignant, one should direct one's anger at France and UK this time around.

Americans like their saying about price of freedom and how freedom is not free but in reality they are just like anyone else. Get a job, work on a career, lose your ideals and drown the meaninglessness of the bourgeoisie life in readily supplied entertainment. On a lighter note, according to official data every other American is overweight and every third is plain obese, they may own a shitload of guns but how do you expect them to wage an asymmetrical guerrilla war against the corrupt government for month

As of 2010, there were 300 million guns in private ownership in U.S. - almost one per citizen.

Granted, this is somewhat deceptive, since in practice a person tends to either own no guns, or to own more than one. Still, I think that "shitload of guns" is a valid assessment. Not that there is any problem with it.

What's your thought process there? The fact that I can voice my dissent in relative safety means that our government is good and just? No, the fact that we can voice our dissent in safety is only more condemning. No one is using this vital freedom. If we had to fear for our lives if we spoke up, we'd have some sort of excuse for not doing so.

Since when does being a government employee interfere with your freedom of speech?

Since he volunteered to work for the State Department and work in a diplomatic function. When working as a diplomat any public statements can reflect upon the United States government, not you merely yourself as an individual.

You missed the point of the movies. What made the communists evil wasn't that they punished people who violated their rules, but that they would make up phony violations, and then punish without due process.